05 January,2023 02:06 PM IST | Mumbai | Muhammad Raafi
File photo
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday stayed the Uttarakhand High Court's order directing authorities to "evict" people from railway land in Haldwani and said that a solution needs to be worked out.
The apex court said that thousands cannot be "uprooted" overnight and the government will have to provide full rehabilitation to the people living in the area.
"In the meantime, there shall be a stay of the directions passed in the impugned order," the apex court said barring any new construction or development on the land.
Also read: Covid-19 infection may impact semen quality in men: AIIMS study
ALSO READ
Damaged houses in land subsidence-hit Jyotirmath can be repaired, says Uttarakhand authorities
Badrinath pilgrimage: 1.5 tonnes of waste cleared in massive post-season cleanup
Illicit liquor factory busted in Uttarakhand's Nanital, 1 held
Uttarakhand bypoll: 57.64 per cent voter turnout in Kedarnath
Missing Delhi teen rescued from Uttarakhand; 19-yr-old 'kidnapper' arrested
Staying the High Court's order to remove encroachments from railway land in Uttarakhand's Haldwani area, the Supreme Court issued a notice to Uttarakhand government and India Railways on the pleas challenging Uttarakhand High Court's decision ordering the State authorities to remove encroachments from railway land in Haldwani's Banbhoolpura area.
The Court scheduled the next hearing for the case on February 7, 2023.
The Uttarakhand High Court on December 20 had ordered demolition of constructions over "encroached" railway land at Banbhoolpura in Haldwani.
The high court had directed that a week's notice be given to the encroachers after which the encroachments should be demolished.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices S A Nazeer and P S Narasimha posted the matter for hearing in the Supreme Court after advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the case.
The residents have submitted in their plea that the high court has gravely erred in passing the impugned order despite being aware of the fact that proceedings with regard to title of the residents including the petitioners are pending before the district magistrate.
The petitioners claimed they are in possession of valid documents that clearly establish their title and valid occupation.